It has long been known that different people respond differently to different sensory stimuli. In the fashion industry, for example, it is accepted that a person will look good in certain colors or fabrics, but will be unable to wear other colors or fabrics. In the use of aromatics, it is known that some people will respond favorably to a particular scent, while others will react unfavorably to the same scent. In cosmetics, different tones and shades of colors are used to evoke different kinds of moods. Similarly different visual patterns will produce different reactions when viewed by different individuals. Different people will even respond differently to the feel of different textures and fabrics.
Although it is commonly understood that different individuals will have different reactions to sensory stimuli, there have only been a few attempts to systematically categorize the reactions of different groups of individuals to different sensory stimuli. The possibility that there are distinct categorizations of the coloring and skin tones of individuals was first recognized by the artist Joseph Itten in the early part of the 20th century. Itten, J., The Art of Color, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, N.Y. (1973). Perhaps the most well-known system for color categorization is the four-season theory of color and fashion originally developed in the 1950's and 60's by Suzanne Caygill and later popularized by Carole Jackson. Caygill, S., Color. The Essence of You, Celestial Arts, Millbrae, Calif. (1981). Jackson, C., Color Me Beautiful, Acropolis Books, Washington, D.C. (1973), and Color for Men, Ballantine Books, New York, New York (1984). In the four-season color theory, a match is made between a characteristic base color of a person's skin tone and a certain group of colors and styles which look best when worn by that person. The colors and styles are grouped according to the different seasons: spring, summer, fall and winter.
One of the advantages of color matching techniques such as the four-season color theory is the ability to categorize an individual as a member of a larger class of individuals who have similar types of characteristics. Philosophers and psychologists from as early as Hippocrates have recognized that people can be generally classified as having a predominate set of personality characteristics. Interestingly, most of these types of classifications schemes which have been proposed throughout history break down personality characteristics into four broad categories which have often been referred to as archetypes, such as Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Choleric and Melancholic as defined by Hippocrates; King, Lover, Warrior and Magician as defined by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette, and Expressive, Amiable, Driver, Analytical as defined by Wilson Learning Corporation. Other well-known historic characteristic archetype classification systems include the six Chinese personality characteristics: Yin/Yang, Dramatic, Natural, Gamin/Classic, Romantic, and Ingenue; and the three Ayruvedic body/personality types: Kaffa, Vatta and Pita.
Understanding the nature of each of these broad categories of personality characteristic classifications or archetypes offers the possibility for enhanced personal insight and awareness. As psychologists have come to appreciate, however, the challenge in realizing any value from an understanding of an individual's archetype is intimately bound up with the ability to properly categorize that individual into one of the archetypes. Because human beings are complex and highly adaptable creatures, there is often a tendency for individuals to act out of an archetype that is more often dictated by an individual's personal experiences and family of origin, rather than out of an archetype which is inherent for that individual. It is apparent that the process of determining an individual's inherent archetype by reference to his or her personality characteristics is far from an objective process.
If there is a relationship between personality archetypes and an individual's response to sensory stimuli, then the ability to "type" that individual by his or her characteristic response to sensory stimuli has the potential to offer unique insights into the inherent archetype or individual essence of that person. The problem is that most techniques for characterizing the physical attributes and responses of an individual are as subjective in their evaluation of an individual's characteristics responses to sensory stimuli as any subjective analysis of that individual's personality characteristics. Systems, such as the four-season color theory, offer no systematic objective way of testing or typing an individual to determine what season of colors best matches that individual.
Typing for the four-season color theory is done either by a professional color consultant skilled in color theory in a one-on-one session, or by an individual using subjective recollection and reaction to particular groups of colors as part of a self-match test. In the former case, typing is an individual and expensive process that requires the trained skills of a professional color consultant. The color consultant renders a subjective analysis based on observations of that person which is very similar to a subjective personality evaluation which would be performed by a psychologist of psychiatrist. In the later case, the subjective reactions of the individual may alter or skew the results of the typing.
With proper training and sufficient time, a color evaluation performed by a professional color can be accurate and is the only way which some proponents of the four-season theory of color recommend that typing be performed. Callaway, J., The Color Connection: From a Retailer's Perspective, Winterspring Press, Davis, Calif. (1986). Unfortunately, there are few formal programs to train color consultants and no recognized standards by which to evaluate the accuracy of this kind of professional typing.
The time and expense involved in on one-on-one professional color consultation sessions has lead to the development of several self-matching tests that, without the benefit of any training in color analysis, ask individuals to match their hair, skin and eye colors with a series of colored swatches in order to determine their own color season or type. There are several other versions of the type of self-matching tests described by Caygill and Jackson which rely solely on a self-matching of colors. Mumford, J., Everyone is Someone in Color, Publishers Press, Salt Lake City, Utah (1976); Elseman, L., Alive with Color; and Color Works, video by Color One Institute. Another kind of self-match test that does not attempt to classify individuals according to a characteristic type is U.S. Pat. No. 5,178,169 issued to Lamle which describes a cosmetics selecting device that is a flexible strip having different color, shade and tones of cosmetics which is placed across the forehead to allow a user to select which color, shade and tone best matches the individuals skin color. Obviously, the problems of inaccuracy in typing by strict color matching are greatly compounded by any of these kinds of self-matching tests where the tests are attempted by someone without formal color training.
In an attempt to rely less on strict color matching, several existing self-test systems combine a subjective analysis of color matching with a subjective analysis of personality characteristics in order to type individuals. Kentner, B., Color Me a Season, How to Find and Use Your Most Flattering Colors, KenKra Publishers, Concord, Calif. (1978); Segerstrom, J., Look Like Yourself & Love It!, Triad Press, Houston, Tex. (1980); Kentner, B., A Rainbow in Your Eyes, KenKra Publishers, Concord, Calif. (1981); Pickney, G. and Swenson, M., Your New Image Through Color and Line, Fashion Image/Crown Summit Books, Costa Mesa, Calif. (1981). While the idea of using a psychological evaluation to assist in self-typing would seem to provide better results in terms of accuracy, the accuracy of these combined self-test system is often less than that of color matching alone. This can be understood by realizing that instead of having one subjective test administered by a non-professional, these systems use two subjective tests that are self-administered.
Other systems have been proposed to solve the inaccuracy problems which are associated with color typing through subjective color matching. U.S. Pat. No. 4,681,546 issued to Hart describes a method of spectrum analysis of the natural tones of the person's skin by using a color filter system to determine the distribution and concentration of primary colors, and then categorizing wearing apparel and accessories into classes based on concentrations of the primary colors in those articles. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,311,293, 5,313,267 and 4,969,632 issued to McFarlane et al. describe methods and instruments for identifying skin color categories based upon blue and yellow undertones of the skin as measured by a color measuring device. As with color typing by professional color consultants, these systems are expensive and can require sophisticated equipment in order to perform a color analysis. More importantly, these systems are limited to the accuracy of the color analysis, which at present is less accurate than human color perception. In addition, these systems cannot analyze differences in sensory stimuli other than pure color matching.
Although the possibility of typing individuals by their characteristic response to sensory stimuli has tremendous potential, existing techniques and systems for performing such typing have significant limitations that preclude their widespread use. Accordingly, it would be desirable to provide a system for characteristic typing of individual essences in reaction to sensory stimuli which overcomes the limitations of existing techniques and system and which allows for widespread use of this information.